Agroecosystem Shifts and Implications for Agricultural Transformation in Central Vietnam

Vietnam’s agricultural transformation has reshaped agroecosystems, revealing both the ecological costs of early intensification and the potential for more sustainable development trajectories through policy reform. Using a driver‐pressure‐state‐impact‐response (DPSIR) framework and qualitative methods, this study identifies five phases of agricultural transformation and examines how changing drivers and their interactions have shaped sustainability outcomes. Five phases are identified as follows: pre‐1986 subsistence; 1986–2000 market‐oriented growth; 2001–2010 peak input‐intensive expansion; 2011–2020 initial integration of climate resilience and green growth; and an emerging sustainability‐oriented transition since 2021. Findings indicate that the 2001–2010 phase was associated with increasing soil degradation, water pollution, biodiversity loss, and greenhouse gas emissions, highlighting the environmental limitations of input‐intensive growth. After 2011, sustainability‐oriented agricultural policy reforms promoted low‐carbon rice production, circular livestock strategies, and stricter fertilizer and pesticide management. However, excessive agrochemical use remains a persistent challenge. Since 2021, stronger policy enforcement, broader adoption of environmentally friendly agricultural practices, and growing demand for high‐quality agricultural products have coincided with stakeholder‐reported improvements in agroecosystem conditions. Stakeholders reported gradual improvements in soil, water, and air quality, together with the reappearance of aquatic organisms that they associated with biodiversity. These findings represent perceived trends rather than verified ecological recovery. Evidence from Central Vietnam suggests that linear, input‐intensive agricultural growth pathways can generate persistent environmental pressures. Long‐term sustainability therefore requires adaptive, nonlinear development that integrates circular practices, climate resilience, farmer engagement, and market feedback. The findings further suggest that agriculture can function both as a source of ecological pressure and as a pathway toward climate resilience and sustainable development, depending on governance and production practices.